TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise (Rebate), Raigad. 2. Brief facts of these cases are that the applicant's rebate claims were rejected vide the above two Orders-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Rebate) Raigad rejecting rebate claims of Rs. 236811/- and Rs. 224840/- on the grounds that in one case the container number and seal numbers on various export documents were not tallying; in the other case the date of Mate Receipt was 0502.2009 and as per the endorsement of the Custom Officer, the goods had been exported on 05.02.2009 itself whereas the corresponding ARE-I was dated 28.02.2009 and the Shipping Bill was dated 26102.2009. The rebate claim was also rejected for non-submission of BRCs. The original authority also held that rebate claims a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 4364618 dated 01.07.2011 thus one of the ground on which the rebate claim is thus squashed. This is for the simple reason that the customer of the Appellants have received the goods and released the payment. Since the goods have reached the destination, the export is established 4.1.2 That the total number of cartoon & pallets mentioned in ARE-I No.715 dated 30.06.2011 is also tallied with the number of cartons as shown in Shipping Bill No.4364618 dated 01.07.2012. Only the container No. shown in B/L is HLXU 8701879 with seal Nos.00195, which is not tallied with (i) container No. TRLU 1777965 seal No.545386 shown in Shipping Bill and (ii) container No. TRLU 1777965, seal No.817221 shown in Mate Receipt. 4.1.3 This action is worthwhile ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.07.2011. Have reached the clients of the appellants have released the payment to the appellants. Thus the entire chapter of the goods exported is closed. On this ground itself, the appellants pray to condon the lapse for non-submission of 1st page of ARE No. 960 dated 23.08.2010. 4.1.8 On the issue of Sanction of rebate claim in cash based on the FOB Value, the appellants request that as the duty was paid on CIF Value, the appellants pray that the re-credit be given in cenvat credit accounts, as the Govt. cannot hold the duty in case where the duty paid is in excess of the FOB Value. Its cost to the exporter. On this issue, Your Honour have allowed the appeal vide Order No.US/370 to 379/Rgd/2011 dated 21.10.2011. 4.1.9 On the issue of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as 05.022009 as the Mates Receipt No. 154 dated 05.02.2009 was issued for Shipping Bill No.7122464 dated 26.02.2009. Since the date of Mates Receipt was 05.022009, the Respondents have informed the Appellants to submit BRC vide their Letter dated 26.042011 this was with the intention to establish that-the goods are exported and collateral evidences are relied upon, as in the past, the respondents have accepted BRC in case of procedural lapse. 4.2.2 Since the claim was rejected only with the two minor defects, the applicants' have referred to the Shifting Bill and they have agreed to the mistake and fresh Mate Receipt No.154 dated 05.03.2009 was issued. 4.2.3 Since the payments of goods covered vide Shipping Bill No.7122464 dated 26.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional and Nutron Gems & Others, 1989 (39) EL.T. 503 Mangalaore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs. DCCE, 1991 (55) ELT 437(SC) 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 13.03.2015 and 05.11.2015. Shri Hiren Soni, Asstt. Manager (W.H) and Shri Hemang Vaishnav, Asstt. Manager (IT) appeared for personal hearing on 13.03.2015 on behalf of applicant. None attended personal hearing on behalf of respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the original authority has held that rebate is admissible only on duty payable @4% on FOB value as against @10%, as claimed by the applicant and that rebate claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Central Excise Act, 1944. Ratio of said judgments will be applicable to this case also. 9. In respect of revision application pertaining to Order-in-Original No. 785/1112/DC(Rebate), Raigad dated 0406.2012, Government observes that the original authority rejected the rebate claim on the ground that Mate Receipt No.154 dated 05.022009 was issued prior with regard to relevant Shipping Bill No.7122464 dated 2602.2009 which is not possible; that BRC was not submitted and it was held that in case rebate had not been rejected, it would be restricted to FOB value. 9.1 As regards the issue of date of Mates Receipt is concerned, the applicant contended that they have submitted fresh copy of the relevant Mate Receipt which shows the date as 05.0....